|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

08-05-2014, 08:39 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bismarck, ND
Posts: 212
|
|
hangar
Those of you thinking the proposed rule is a win have never dealt with the variety of people interpreting and enforcing those rules.
The vagueness of terms like "temporary storage", "incidental items", "insignificant" etc. are left to the imagination of the person making that determination.
My experience goes back to an FAA FSDO inspector. When determining if a alteration on a certified plane was a major or minor, FAR appendix A at the time (since changed in 2012) stated that if an alteration caused appreciable change in the empty weight, it was major. Well this inspectors interpretation was that given the proper equipment, you could measure the weight of a electrical connector, therefore all alterations were major.
To me appreciable meant moving a battery from the firewall to the aft baggage compartment, his interpretation was if it could be measured.
Relying on the good will and reasonableness of those entrusted to enforce the rules can be quite unpredictable unless those rules are well defined.
Obviously the rules cannot cover every possible scenario, but if what is in the hangar deals with aviation and the support thereof, it should be allowed.
If your airplane goes on a trip and your car goes in, that is in support of the aeronautical activity. In addition parking does not need to be built.
If you have a cot to rest during wx delays, that is in support of aeronautical activity.
If you are storing paint cans for your hardware store, sorry, that is not support of aeronautical activity.
If you are building an airplane, or any other activity that supports any aspect of aviation, it is aeronautical activity.
Anything less than defining building as an aeronautical activity is unacceptable. If an airport is looking to get a $10million grant and all that is stopping them is the FAA assertion that they are allowing non aeronautical activity in the hangars, who do you think is going to lose?
COMMENT!
__________________
Larry Buller
RV7A slow build, Tip up, IO360 200hp, Catto 3 blade, Dynon Skyview, arinc 429, ems, SV transponder, Garmin GNS430w, Aera 560, Dynon D6.
FLYING!
|

08-05-2014, 09:39 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,012
|
|
Just curious why so many see it as OK for the FAA to stick their nose into a local issue *if* it's to remove boats, non aviation businesses, etc.? Interesting. Seems to me that the city does a pretty good job where I am. Wonder what's wrong with that approach??
And by the way, who's paying for this enforcement? And will you loose your certificate if you're found in violation?!
This whole thing is just, simply, whacked.
Last edited by Low Pass : 08-05-2014 at 09:41 AM.
|

08-05-2014, 09:46 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NorCal
Posts: 565
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by YellowJacket RV9
The problem supposedly being addressed is non-aviation uses such as as storage for cars, motorhomes, boats, etc.
|
"Non-aviation use" is any use that doesn't require a runway. It doesn't matter what is being stored or worked on in an airport hangar, if it doesn't require a runway now or in the near future, it shouldn't be subsidized by tax monies intended for flying activities, and taking a valuable hangar away from an actively flying aircraft.
From the Summary of the Proposed Rule:
Quote:
|
Moreover, many airports have a waiting list for hangar space, and a tenant's use of a hangar for non-aeronautical purposes prevents aircraft owners from obtaining access to hangar storage on the airport.
|
Not-so-hypothetical situation: At airport Anywhere, USA, there is a wait list for hangars, measured in years. Someone has a flying aircraft that is being kept out on the ramp; they can afford a hangar but there is not one available. Meanwhile a hangar renter has occupied a hangar for several years while building an Experimental.
Why should the active flying aircraft deteriorate outside, while a building project that does not need a runway occupy a hangar?
And here's the comment I just left on the Comment site:
Quote:
|
I applaud the actions of the FAA in this Proposed Rule. Currently quite a number of hangars at airports near me (the Sacramento, California area) are treated as storage units for all manner of items (land vehicles, watercraft, not-airworthy aircraft in disrepair, even furniture). Meanwhile ALL airports in this area have waiting lists for aircraft owners that wish to keep their FLYING aircraft protected from the elements. This Proposed Rule will help ensure that my tax dollars are used for their intended purpose: to keep Federally subsidized airports reserved for FLYING aircraft, not for storage space or long-term building projects that could be done elsewhere.
|
The bottom line is, many airports have a shortage of hangars. I don't know why this is so, since the aviation population has declined over the years as we all know. But so long as there is a shortage, the scarcity must be allocated some way. Price is one way, and regulation another. This strikes me as a very reasonable accommodation for all parties competing for hangar space.
__________________
Ralph Finch
RV-9A QB-SA
Davis, CA
Last edited by Buggsy2 : 08-05-2014 at 10:03 AM.
|

08-05-2014, 09:56 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: La Feria Texas
Posts: 3,822
|
|
In my case, the city simply does not care, as long as the rent on the land is paid. Meanwhile aircraft have to be parked outside or at another airport, while hangars are used for all the non aviation reasons previously stated, not for aircraft storage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Low Pass
Just curious why so many see it as OK for the FAA to stick their nose into a local issue *if* it's to remove boats, non aviation businesses, etc.? Interesting. Seems to me that the city does a pretty good job where I am. Wonder what's wrong with that approach??
And by the way, who's paying for this enforcement? And will you loose your certificate if you're found in violation?!
This whole thing is just, simply, whacked.
|
|

08-05-2014, 09:58 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hopkinsville, KY
Posts: 957
|
|
289 comments now
49 comments Sunday, 289 Tuesday
Keep sending them in!
__________________
Bobby Hester - Builder/Pilot/A&P
Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
N857BH RV7A XP-O360 - Garmin G3X ADS-B IN/OUT 2020 Compliant
Web site: http://www.newtech.com/bobbyhester/RVSite.htm
Dec. 2019 VAF donator - alot better than any magazine subscription
|

08-05-2014, 10:05 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Niagara falls, ny
Posts: 109
|
|
It's funny I was excited about building my plane at the airport with fellow builders and pilots but after hearing fellow builders on here about not being allowed to build at airports and agreeing with the faa has given me second thoughts I guess it's not a as a tight knit group as I thought, aviation is aviation we should all be in this together builders and completed planes working together
|

08-05-2014, 10:14 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Meridian ID, Aspen CO, Okemos MI
Posts: 2,645
|
|
Repair of damaged aircraft
Lets say I do what others have done and roll over a bump larger than the "A" nose wheel was designed for and I go over. Do I have to take the airplane apart and move to another location to repair all the parts, then bring everything back for final assembly? What if it was a certified plane that did a ground loop and had lots of damage.
Why is taking 5 years or longer building your airplane in a hangar any different than storing a finished plane that is not current for 5 years? Will this force all the planes that never fly to move outside or recycled?
I have been looking for a hangar for quite some time. I just found a T hangar for rent at the city owned airport. There is a 50'x50' hangar for sale at a good price. There is no reason at all for me to even consider that now. If ALL aviation activity including building and even storage of an old hangar queen airplane isn't allowed, the value of hangars just went down big time.
The rule needs to allow all aviation activity - including building. As long as it has aviation activity, whatever else in in the hangar should not matter.
__________________
rockwoodrv9a
Williamston MI
O-320 D2A
Awaiting DAR Inspection
|

08-05-2014, 10:18 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 4,435
|
|
Some parts of this could be interpreted to preclude skydiving. Others to preclude club activities or restoration of aircraft.
I'll comment on specific details when I send the comments in. My general thought is that the goal is good, much of the wording is good, but some of the specific nuances need attention.
Dave
|

08-05-2014, 10:24 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 08A
Posts: 9,500
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Low Pass
Just curious why so many see it as OK for the FAA to stick their nose into a local issue *if* it's to remove boats, non aviation businesses, etc.? Interesting. Seems to me that the city does a pretty good job where I am. Wonder what's wrong with that approach??
|
First and foremost, the local sponsor is often the violator.
Second, in any dispute (originating with sponsor or tenant), somebody always raises the question "What does the FAA say about it?"
Third, the FAA has no Airport Hangar Use Enforcement Division. When requested, they make a ruling. From there enforcement is in fact a local matter, in the local courts. For the most part, the only punitive action the FAA will take is withholding of grant funds, and then pretty much only when someone has the bad judgement to rub their noses in it.
Which brings us back to what quite a few folks here are trying to say....the NPRM as written is NOT fundamentally against our interests. It needs to be supported, with a tweak: the addition of basic aircraft fabrication as an approved aeronautical activity. The rest of it is better than what we have now.
__________________
Dan Horton
RV-8 SS
Barrett IO-390
|

08-05-2014, 10:44 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,012
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanH
First and foremost, the local sponsor is often the violator.
Second, in any dispute (originating with sponsor or tenant), somebody always raises the question "What does the FAA say about it?"
Third, the FAA has no Airport Hangar Use Enforcement Division. When requested, they make a ruling. From there enforcement is in fact a local matter, in the local courts. For the most part, the only punitive action the FAA will take is withholding of grant funds, and then pretty much only when someone has the bad judgement to rub their noses in it.
Which brings us back to what quite a few folks here are trying to say....the NPRM as written is NOT fundamentally against our interests. It needs to be supported, with a tweak: the addition of basic aircraft fabrication as an approved aeronautical activity. The rest of it is better than what we have now.
|
Sounds like a dangerous precedent; empowering the federal government to have say in what is contained in a hangar. The DHS, TSA, etc. will be right behind them. Cure sounds worse than the disease.
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:55 AM.
|